Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
I have no particular idea why - but I really shy away from him, instinctually. He comes across 'fine', but... maybe he reminds me of someone. Maybe it's the easy media manner. But I'd never for vote a Labour party led by him. It's like that way you just wouldn't sit next to that guy on the train or bus. Inexplicable but you can't help the feeling.
He has something of the Kray twins about him.
I don't think that's fair, the Kray twins had an air of "your face's about to slashed open" about them, I don't think you could level that at any current MP.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
Leader of party with next to sweet FA MPs over the last 2 decade has fourth highest number of appearances... You'd be entitled to feel hard done by if you were a leader of SNP, DUP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru...
Not really The guests appearing most have been Ken Clarke, Shirley Williams, Ming Csmpbell and Muchael Heseltine. Notice anything about them? At a time when the country was pretty evenly split on the major question of the EU, Farage was pretty much the only figure being invited on regularly who represented the Eurosceptic side.
And none of the other parties you mention are national parties as far as the whole of the UK is concerned. When QT is held in Scotland or Wales they generally have Scottish and Weksh guests
The film Everest is on BBC right now, someone has walked across the screen wearing a Dole/Kemp '96 shirt. back in the day when a US presidential candidate was a youthful 73 years old.
23 years separated him and Clinton, and he ran for VP 20 years prior in 1976
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
For the man who represented and carried the torch for the most important political question of the last 20 years, just over once a year is not exactly regular. And especially when the same critics are trying to claim that these appearances skewed the public perception of the debate. I mean how weak does the pro-EU argument have to be that Farage appearing on a one hour topical debate programme once every 9 months is enough to crucially influence the public perception?
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
Doesn't that just reflect that he's leading the party that's miles ahead in the polls, backed up by real world election results, and is also willing to come on QT? Starmer and Kemmi could probably be on a lot too, but they send stooge of the week instead.
If you look at it by party representation, rather than particular individuals, Labour and the Tories are miles ahead of everyone else, despite Reform being the UK's most popular party by a whopping margin.
So the suggestion that Farage being on is bias is complete bollocks, and the real question is why are the Tories and Labour so over-represented.
Nearly 30 degrees in French Pyrénées today apparently.
Wild for November.
Back in UK we have cold weather coming next week it seems. Single figures in day time.
18 and misty here in Laguna Beach.
North end of Main Beach?
Shaws Cove is where I tend to hang out when I am on the west coast
Yes North end of main beach. The murky weather has given way to a spectacular red sunset over Catalina Island (I’m now wandering in Newport beach) which I’d post but I’ve done my one for the day.
At least one bit of good news: nobody in the US I’m talking to is mentioning Starmer, Reeves, the budget or the BBC stuff. Too busy talking Trump.
Has anyone watched Series 1 of Traitors Australia? Just finished watching episode 12 out of 12, and there was something rather strange about the way one of the contestants was featured during the series.
Nearly 30 degrees in French Pyrénées today apparently.
Wild for November.
Back in UK we have cold weather coming next week it seems. Single figures in day time.
18 and misty here in Laguna Beach.
North end of Main Beach?
Shaws Cove is where I tend to hang out when I am on the west coast
Yes North end of main beach. The murky weather has given way to a spectacular red sunset over Catalina Island (I’m now wandering in Newport beach) which I’d post but I’ve done my one for the day.
At least one bit of good news: nobody in the US I’m talking to is mentioning Starmer, Reeves, the budget or the BBC stuff. Too busy talking Trump.
I'm also in the US and I agree. My current host is too busy working about his Hispanic American citizen wife being snatched off the street and disappearing into a gulag forever. Other friends of mine have mentioned National Guard troops on the streets, the sky high cost of groceries, the Middle East and Trump's apparent senility more. Starmer is too bland and uninteresting and the BBC stuff is about item #738 in Trump's list of atrocities or triumphs, depending on your political view, to make it onto the average American's radar at the moment.
Nearly 30 degrees in French Pyrénées today apparently.
Wild for November.
Back in UK we have cold weather coming next week it seems. Single figures in day time.
18 and misty here in Laguna Beach.
North end of Main Beach?
Shaws Cove is where I tend to hang out when I am on the west coast
Yes North end of main beach. The murky weather has given way to a spectacular red sunset over Catalina Island (I’m now wandering in Newport beach) which I’d post but I’ve done my one for the day.
At least one bit of good news: nobody in the US I’m talking to is mentioning Starmer, Reeves, the budget or the BBC stuff. Too busy talking Trump.
I'm also in the US and I agree. My current host is too busy working about his Hispanic American citizen wife being snatched off the street and disappearing into a gulag forever. Other friends of mine have mentioned National Guard troops on the streets, the sky high cost of groceries, the Middle East and Trump's apparent senility more. Starmer is too bland and uninteresting and the BBC stuff is about item #738 in Trump's list of atrocities or triumphs, depending on your political view, to make it onto the average American's radar at the moment.
My funniest political moment was discussing Trump 2.0 with a (pretty strongly Trump supporting) colleague who’s a first generation Indian immigrant to Texas. Funny but also oddly insightful.
He was berating the fact that the recent surge in illegal migration was spoiling things for all the hard working illegal (or undocumented as they call it) migrants doing their bit for the American dream, paying their taxes and making the country great. His friend had been snatched by ICE and sent back to somewhere in Central America and he was a bit annoyed at this. He wished Trump’s lot would ease up a bit. But in no way did this change his preference for Trump, largely based on “no more wars” and stopping supporting Ukraine.
Then in San Francisco I had 2 evenings with what turned out to be dyed in the wool Dems who think Trump is ridiculous and an outrage. Also Indian first gen immigrants.
But the reassuring thing? None of them seem to take it too seriously. We feel a long way from civil war here. But perhaps that’s because I’m mixing with relatively rich people who don’t care that deeply.
One more thought for tonight on the troubled BBC: the Beeb has just brought us celebrity traitors, apparently the first non-sports programme in over a decade that’s had Gen Z viewers tuning in to live TV in large numbers. So it’s still got it, when it can be arsed.
Has anyone watched Series 1 of Traitors Australia? Just finished watching episode 12 out of 12, and there was something rather strange about the way one of the contestants was featured during the series.
This may help
https://www.reYebbut,it has no faithful in it...ddit.com/r/TheTraitors/comments/1ktwblf/why_does_the_traitors_australia_feel_so_off_the/
I believe they've just started a new UK series - set in Downing Street.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Probably OT. I just read this statement about why the doctors shouldn't strike from Wes Streeting. I'm sure it will have been posted already. It's excellent. Hard hitting but fair and something of a rallying cry. Wes Streeting is certainly the one to watch.
A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.
This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.
----------------- Good morning, Matt
Many thanks for your enquiry.
We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.
If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.
We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.
Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.
Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.
Kind Regards
That looks to me to be a very good response and they are doing everything they reasonably can to accommodate wheelchair users.
Where did they fall down so that you docked 2.5/10 points?
Because accessibility is about far more than wheelchairs, and I would need to do a site survey to get a full impression. So it's more about not having enough information to go higher, rather than docking points.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
There's loads of stuff to consider.
Seems harsh to score them down vs note the limitations of your work
I disagree, but I'm happy to withdraw the (good) score, and just leave the praise.
This is the reply. It is quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
Thinking as a consumer (albeit not disabled but I assume they would think the same as other consumers) if I see something with a 7 or 8 rating then it’s a “may be” and probably a bit “meh”.
For all you know, they have all the pathways laid out in an optimal way for wheelchairs. And yet you are discouraging people from going.
Better to highlight what is good, what is bad and what you don’t know. So give it a 10:10 rating (if that is what it deserves based on your observations) and note where you don’t have the data to form a judgement
Would the WH not hand over all the Epstein files ? Would they risk releasing only those which don’t include anything incriminating to Trump ?
Could they get away with that ? Or have too many already seen what’s in those files especially from the previous administration.
The Dems either didn’t see anything that would hurt Trump or was there also files incriminating senior Democrats and that’s why they didn’t release them .
So many questions ?
The papers were sealed due to an ongoing court case during Biden’s administration
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
You should quit sites with large numbers of daily users where implicit groupings can’t fully form due to the low frictional cost of moving between these groupings. So yes to PB and other forums, no to X/Reddit/BlueSky/etc.
Digital villages and small towns, not mega cities.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Trying to do news on the cheap strikes again.
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Trying to do news on the cheap strikes again.
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
Oh, I don't know, Reith had a thing with Churchill.
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
Blairite proclaims the Blairite candidate - remember, according to some, always intended to be the successor, to be the second coming. Rather a non-shock.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Brent Crude at $62 this morning. It was $72 this time last year.
OPEC has pretty much decided that it’s in their collective interest to take out Russia as a supplier for the foreseeable future, so they’re going to price out Putin and the Saudis are even selling at a discount on the commodity price to India next month.
Some relief on the horizon from high energy costs, assuming Rachel doesn’t just whack up fuel duty.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Trying to do news on the cheap strikes again.
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
Brent Crude at $62 this morning. It was $72 this time last year.
OPEC has pretty much decided they’re going to price out Putin, and the Saudis are even selling at a discount on the commodity price to India next month.
Some relief on the horizon from high energy costs, assuming Rachel doesn’t just whack up fuel duty.
Reductions in global wholesale prices seem oddly divorced from domestic prices here.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Trying to do news on the cheap strikes again.
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
What a fatuous comparison.
Not really. Part of governments role is to take the strain for exceptional events. That’s not to argue everything was perfect about the uk response, but to say that once in a generation spending is not atypical
Brent Crude at $62 this morning. It was $72 this time last year.
OPEC has pretty much decided they’re going to price out Putin, and the Saudis are even selling at a discount on the commodity price to India next month.
Some relief on the horizon from high energy costs, assuming Rachel doesn’t just whack up fuel duty.
Reductions in global wholesale prices seem oddly divorced from domestic prices here.
Well I’m currently paying (checks notes) 54.6p for a litre of Super 98, which is going to be pretty close to the refinery output cost.
The difference between that and the UK price will mostly be tax and delivery. Don’t forget that you pay VAT on the fuel duty as well, tax on tax!
One more thought for tonight on the troubled BBC: the Beeb has just brought us celebrity traitors, apparently the first non-sports programme in over a decade that’s had Gen Z viewers tuning in to live TV in large numbers. So it’s still got it, when it can be arsed.
It can’t really take a lot of credit for the Traitors as it’s a remake of the Dutch programme “ De Verraders” so (not having watched it) whilst it appears to be done well and is popular this isn’t something that’s coming out of the unique way in which the BBC is funded.
Democrats waved the white flag. Literally no point in them any more under the current management.
Perhaps the AOC / Mamdani wing is the best resistance to MAGA after all. I don't think they can win an election. Then again I don't think there will be an election, so...
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
Doesn't that just reflect that he's leading the party that's miles ahead in the polls, backed up by real world election results, and is also willing to come on QT? Starmer and Kemmi could probably be on a lot too, but they send stooge of the week instead.
If you look at it by party representation, rather than particular individuals, Labour and the Tories are miles ahead of everyone else, despite Reform being the UK's most popular party by a whopping margin.
So the suggestion that Farage being on is bias is complete bollocks, and the real question is why are the Tories and Labour so over-represented.
That's now, his overrepresentation is historic from when they had far lower support. He doesn't bother with it now because he's got GB news.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
For the man who represented and carried the torch for the most important political question of the last 20 years, just over once a year is not exactly regular. And especially when the same critics are trying to claim that these appearances skewed the public perception of the debate. I mean how weak does the pro-EU argument have to be that Farage appearing on a one hour topical debate programme once every 9 months is enough to crucially influence the public perception?
So, you accept that Farage is on QT a lot, but are now arguing that it doesn’t matter?
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
Doesn't that just reflect that he's leading the party that's miles ahead in the polls, backed up by real world election results, and is also willing to come on QT? Starmer and Kemmi could probably be on a lot too, but they send stooge of the week instead.
If you look at it by party representation, rather than particular individuals, Labour and the Tories are miles ahead of everyone else, despite Reform being the UK's most popular party by a whopping margin.
So the suggestion that Farage being on is bias is complete bollocks, and the real question is why are the Tories and Labour so over-represented.
There is an ongoing challenge as to whether you should represent the parties relative to their Commons strength or relative to their polling. I also note that over the period of data collection, Reform were not the UK’s most popular party.
More to the point, I take it that you accept that Farage is on QT a lot, as claimed. You’re just arguing that that’s justified.
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
I checked my screen and am very happily green on Streeting, despite my view that getting Labour members to back him remains a big ask. All my next PM bets have been lays - Farage, Badenoch, Johnson, Jenrick, Cleverley, even a little lay on Rupert Lowe whose odds must have come in at some point. So everybody else is nicely green. On next Labour leader I have mostly been laying Burnham, with similar outcome.
New artillery is of far more importance to UK military capacity than (for instance) the Challenger 3 program.
Mobile Fires Platform "aims to achieve Minimum Deployable Capability (MDC) within this decade" according to latest written answer, but also says "project remains in its assessment phase and therefore it remains too early to provide an exact in-service date". .. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1988692344183656697
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
I wouldn’t have said they would be dozens by now but I think we wasted the last 4 years.
It probably would have slipped a bit, but if government had got wholeheartedly behind the project a decade ago it would have made quite the difference.
The plan was that, after a couple of prototypes, they come off a production line one every couple of months as the design is pretty simple.
It could also have generated billions in exports by now, shoring up the balance of payments.
But the past is in the past, and at least the government are doing something positive about the technology.
New artillery is of far more importance to UK military capacity than (for instance) the Challenger 3 program.
Mobile Fires Platform "aims to achieve Minimum Deployable Capability (MDC) within this decade" according to latest written answer, but also says "project remains in its assessment phase and therefore it remains too early to provide an exact in-service date". .. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1988692344183656697
Meanwhile there’s an actual war on, and they’re all still having meetings about having meetings about doing assesments.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
“Farage is not on QT a lot. He’s only the fourth equal highest,” is not the winning argument you appear to think it is. It seems to me that your data proved he is on QT rather a lot. In fact, more than almost anyone else.
For the man who represented and carried the torch for the most important political question of the last 20 years, just over once a year is not exactly regular. And especially when the same critics are trying to claim that these appearances skewed the public perception of the debate. I mean how weak does the pro-EU argument have to be that Farage appearing on a one hour topical debate programme once every 9 months is enough to crucially influence the public perception?
So, you accept that Farage is on QT a lot, but are now arguing that it doesn’t matter?
Farage isn’t on QT so much now because he has plenty of other platforms to amplify his wizened world view. I can’t be arsed checking but I’m pretty sure Tice and Yusuf have been on a disproportionate number of times recently.
In any case Farage wouldn’t want to take the risk of even a QT audience giving him pelters for bullshit like this.
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
Ask the voters "Would you like a nuclear sub moored in your constituency?" - and see what answers you get.
The only sites they will be put are ones we just spent billions decommissioing exisiting nuclear power stations. The upper limit for the last number I saw for decomissioning all the existing nuclear facilities in the UK was £222 billion. Yep, billion. And that was a number from 2018. It's not like we have had any inflation since then.
For scale, that's more than half the cost of Covid to the UK. You know, the Covid that buggered up the UK economy - as the Chancellor has discovered.
The BBC abandoned impartiality years ago. A reckoning for the Covid lockdowns is overdue
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all Boris'sthe government's the BBC's fault.
If public sector net debt was £2.3bn, we wouldn’t be in the big mess in the first place.
Do you edit the Telegraph? The article seems to have disappeared from the front page where I saw it, although the URL still works.
Not guilty, perhaps someone gave a nudge to the night editor that the wrong numbers were in the piece.
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Trying to do news on the cheap strikes again.
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
I have no particular idea why - but I really shy away from him, instinctually. He comes across 'fine', but... maybe he reminds me of someone. Maybe it's the easy media manner. But I'd never for vote a Labour party led by him. It's like that way you just wouldn't sit next to that guy on the train or bus. Inexplicable but you can't help the feeling.
He has something of the Kray twins about him.
I don't think that's fair, the Kray twins had an air of "your face's about to slashed open" about them, I don't think you could level that at any current MP.
It looks like Anglesey is getting the first UK SMR.
I’ll believe that when it opens. There could have been dozens of these operational by now, if governments of all colours had just got on with the project.
Ask the voters "Would you like a nuclear sub moored in your constituency?" - and see what answers you get.
The only sites they will be put are ones we just spent billions decommissioing exisiting nuclear power stations. The upper limit for the last number I saw for decomissioning all the existing nuclear facilities in the UK was £222 billion. Yep, billion. And that was a number from 2018. It's not like we have had any inflation since then.
For scale, that's more than half the cost of Covid to the UK. You know, the Covid that buggered up the UK economy - as the Chancellor has discovered.
Half of which went in politician's pockets along with their friends and families. Wonder how much of teh decommissioning cash will go the same way.
Do Labour MPs realise that if they sack Starmer then there will be significant and building pressure for a GE before 2029 to establish "mandate"?
Do they also realise that most of them will lose their seat?
Turkeys etc etc...
Of course, such a lack of mandate can and regularly is, ignored. No incoming Prime Minister has ever stood outside No. 10 and said (as part of their incoming speech), "Despite our system not requiring it, I will as a matter of good faith and belief in the British public, be seeking a GE mandate to confirm the decision just reached by the [Conservative Party membership/Labour Party membership/Unions/MPs] and I therefore announce a GE to be held in [six to eight weeks] time."
Probably be a good thing, but they never do it.
One of the main advantages of a Parliamentary system over a Presidential system is that it is easier to change the leadership of the country when required in a Parliamentary system, precisely because the mandate of a Prime Minister to govern is not a direct one from the electorate.
If we created a convention whereby an election was held following a change of PM the result would not be more frequent elections. It would be fewer changes of PM. This would not be to our benefit as voters or citizens.
What’s the point of having a pious boring Berk in No10 if he’s also incompetent and keeps breaking the rules?
BREAKING: Keir Starmer admits he DID sign off the appointment of David Kogan as chairman of the football regulator - despite taking donations from him.
PM has written to the No10 ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus saying: "This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret."
Magnus replies that this was "regrettable" and welcomes his promise to launch an internal review on appointments.
May I refer you to my previous posts suggesting that before you get rid of Starmer you give some serious thought as to who the replacement will be and why, and if, they will be better.
This will horrify you but a Miliband-type figure would almost certainly improve Labour's polling position given who they are losing votes to. In this kind of political climate, 25-30% would do nicely.
Starmer's dreadful polling numbers aren't because he's hated by the Right - it's because he's lost the faith of the left.
There are two main factors that explain why Starmer has lost the faith of the Left.
One is his relentless determination to use the language of the Right on issues such as immigration and welfare. But the other is that the government is short of about £150bn that would be required to close the deficit and address priority spending areas.
I'll criticise Starmer all day for not being a good politician, but one of the main reasons the Left have turned away from him is his inability to work a fiscal miracle. How many days until a new Miliband-type leader would fall foul of the same numerical logic?
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I am afraid you're calling this one completely wrong @Cyclefree. You are being played.
The key thing is that at least some of Prescott's criticisms are patent tosh to anyone not down a right-wing rabbit hole. "But KAMALA" being the trivial example.
Now it turns out that his editing complaint was... erm... edited.
Whether it's fair or not, that weakens the impact of his other criticisms. A rapier is always more potent than spray-painted sewage.
What's interesting is that the Telegraph seems not to have checked this, and a lot of yesterday's hoohhah was about things that weren't what they seemed on first glance.
Maybe we should just have one news bulletin a week, on Sunday after evensong. And no event is reported until enough time has passed for its veracity and importance to become clear.
"Last with the news", rather than "never wrong for long".
I think I get a pretty good digest of the news with a combination of Callan's Kicks, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and The Bugle. If only Dead Ringers was on more often.
The election is still potentially (indeed probably) at least 3.5 years off.
Whilst I enjoy all this speculation about what might happen, the simple and accurate answer is: Anything.
Anything could happen. Labour could get wiped off the map, Reform could implode... or romp home, the Tories could recover, Labour could recover.
History may not be a guide in this instance but history suggests the last of these is most likely.
I think this is to misunderstand how and why things happen. Things change because people make them change.
So the Tories recovered from the Truss nadir because they got rid of Truss and Sunak/Hunt were an improvement on Truss/Kwarteng. The Brown government improved from its nadir because Mandelson was brought back and improved the quality of governance and communication.
My point is not a prediction that Labour will win zero seats at the next election. My point is that - without change - they will win zero seats at the next election.
So what will change to improve Labours prospects? And if they make a change, will they make the right change that improves things, or will they bungle it as the Tories did when they made Truss PM?
The election is still potentially (indeed probably) at least 3.5 years off.
Whilst I enjoy all this speculation about what might happen, the simple and accurate answer is: Anything.
Anything could happen. Labour could get wiped off the map, Reform could implode... or romp home, the Tories could recover, Labour could recover.
History may not be a guide in this instance but history suggests the last of these is most likely.
I disagree. They came into power because people wanted shot of the last government. History suggests the same will happen to this lot.
If people feel a bit better off in 2028/9, Starmer's successor will be forgiven a lot. And whether or not that happens is very largely out of the hands of the government.
I really cannot see that happening (people feeling better off). We are consuming too much, our government is borrowing too much, taxes and therefore costs are rising, unemployment is rising, and I fear the increase in real wages will prove short lived.
We are, as a country, going to be squeezed either in ways of our own choosing (if the government starts to face reality) or not (if the markets lose patience and do it for us). It's a tough time to be in government. It needs some clear eyed cold calculation and we have a political class that focuses on irrelevances and avoids hard choices.
The simplest way is that global geopolitics settles down, the global cost of hydrocarbons comes down, people don't feel so stretched. Or the flip from 0% to 4% base rates finally works through the system, and we stop having cohorts of people having nasty shocks.
Yes, we still have the gap between the taxes we feel content about paying and the spending we expect "in return", but there will be some slack to cope with that.
Global energy prices killed Heath, had a lot to do with the Trusstershambles, and kept Rishi on the back foot. They probably won't save Starmer, they might (but might not) help his successor.
Apparently a glut of oil is expected in Q1 2026. Lower road fuel prices could be well-timed for the spring elections - but will the government gain the benefit?
I think they're beyond the credibility event horizon where the public believe that anything good that happens is despite them and everything bad that happens is due to them.
A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.
This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.
----------------- Good morning, Matt
Many thanks for your enquiry.
We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.
If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.
We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.
Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.
Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.
Kind Regards
That looks to me to be a very good response and they are doing everything they reasonably can to accommodate wheelchair users.
Where did they fall down so that you docked 2.5/10 points?
Because accessibility is about far more than wheelchairs, and I would need to do a site survey to get a full impression. So it's more about not having enough information to go higher, rather than docking points.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
There's loads of stuff to consider.
Seems harsh to score them down vs note the limitations of your work
I disagree, but I'm happy to withdraw the (good) score, and just leave the praise.
This is the reply. It is quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
Thinking as a consumer (albeit not disabled but I assume they would think the same as other consumers) if I see something with a 7 or 8 rating then it’s a “may be” and probably a bit “meh”.
For all you know, they have all the pathways laid out in an optimal way for wheelchairs. And yet you are discouraging people from going.
Better to highlight what is good, what is bad and what you don’t know. So give it a 10:10 rating (if that is what it deserves based on your observations) and note where you don’t have the data to form a judgement
I missed this reply from @StillWaters . Following up ...
For me, a 7.5 or 8 from 10 in this arena is "good/very good". There's a huge variety.
It's a fascinating conversation all about different views and frames of reference, and how they need to be fully defined for mutual understanding to work. One problem with 10/10 is that everyone assumes it is perfect and finished and done, which is never true. In this case my 7.5/10 was just a note to PB and self, so I wont tell anyone else, and will use words in my feedback. That's the "too short a summary" problem, which skewered Ofsted when they tried one word summaries.
A good example is a National Parks project called "Miles without Stiles" for accessible public footpaths. They label their routes as "for 'all'", "for 'many'", "for 'some'", and ‘challenging’, including gradients and surfaces.
The reference frame problem is that even their "for all" allows gradients are 1:10, described as "Suitable for everyone, including pushchairs and wheelchairs and mobility scooters". But they are not suitable for everyone. A reasonable maximum permissible gradient for normal mobility aids is 1:20 with resting platforms every so often, if we ask disabled organisations - and they prefer shallower gradients still.
In such circs, a consistent standard is the important thing if it is intended to be used widely - so people with different needs can judge it for themselves. And that needs a lot of information.
The same goes on for barriers. Guidelines are that a 1.5m gap with a sealed surface and level approaches is the only accessible access point. Anything else obstructs. I visited a project in Kenilworth in September where Kissing Gates had been used, on advice from a Local Council engaged Consultant. Those were accepted in the 1990s or 2000s, but mobility aid users know that they go rusty, or stiff, or overgrown, and cannot be relied upon unless perfectly maintained, which NEVER happens. And if they get stuck it becomes life threatening if in the countryside, because they cannot pick up their mobility aid and walk.
So it is a complex question, with no cut-and-dried solution.
Comments
Please do not be shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybvQf5gs0ZM
And none of the other parties you mention are national parties as far as the whole of the UK is concerned. When QT is held in Scotland or Wales they generally have Scottish and Weksh guests
The film Everest is on BBC right now, someone has walked across the screen wearing a Dole/Kemp '96 shirt. back in the day when a US presidential candidate was a youthful 73 years old.
23 years separated him and Clinton, and he ran for VP 20 years prior in 1976
Starmer and Kemmi could probably be on a lot too, but they send stooge of the week instead.
If you look at it by party representation, rather than particular individuals, Labour and the Tories are miles ahead of everyone else, despite Reform being the UK's most popular party by a whopping margin.
So the suggestion that Farage being on is bias is complete bollocks, and the real question is why are the Tories and Labour so over-represented.
At least one bit of good news: nobody in the US I’m talking to is mentioning Starmer, Reeves, the budget or the BBC stuff. Too busy talking Trump.
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/you-should-quit-social-media-for
(Except for PB, obvs)
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/12/business/last-penny-minted
https://www.gambling.com/authors/paul-krishnamurty
https://bsky.app/profile/paulmotty.bsky.social
He was berating the fact that the recent surge in illegal migration was spoiling things for all the hard working illegal (or undocumented as they call it) migrants doing their bit for the American dream, paying their taxes and making the country great. His friend had been snatched by ICE and sent back to somewhere in Central America and he was a bit annoyed at this. He wished Trump’s lot would ease up a bit. But in no way did this change his preference for Trump, largely based on “no more wars” and stopping supporting Ukraine.
Then in San Francisco I had 2 evenings with what turned out to be dyed in the wool Dems who think Trump is ridiculous and an outrage. Also Indian first gen immigrants.
But the reassuring thing? None of them seem to take it too seriously. We feel a long way from civil war here. But perhaps that’s because I’m mixing with relatively rich people who don’t care that deeply.
... the IMF estimates the total cost of the UK government’s Covid-19 measures was £410 billion, or £6,067 per person.
This partly accounts for why the British economy is in such a parlous state and why Rachel Reeves has so little room for manoeuvre. For instance, the main reason she can’t borrow more to plug the hole in the public finances is because we maxed out the country’s credit card during the pandemic, with public sector net debt ballooning from £1.8 billion at the end of March 2020 to £2.35 billion by March 2022.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/bbc-covid-ruin-before-davie-prescott-dossier/ (£££)
Reeves has no money left because we got the Covid response wrong and it was all
Boris'sthe government'sthe BBC's fault.Surely that must be an error?
Telegraph sub-editor needs a maths lesson.
ONS says that PSND is £20.246bn at end of September.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance
The total is £2,916.1bn, almost three trillion pounds.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6w/pusf
In March 2022 it was £2,380.9bn.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/nov/12/keir-starmer-wes-streeting-labour-leadership-pmqs-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news
For all you know, they have all the pathways laid out in an optimal way for wheelchairs. And yet you are discouraging people from going.
Better to highlight what is good, what is bad and what you don’t know. So give it a 10:10 rating (if that is what it deserves based on your observations) and note where you don’t have the data to form a judgement
Presumably Toby Young, who wrote it, either put in the wrong numbers himself or left the numbers blank to be filled in by the news desk. There should be an editor checking official statistics in opinion pieces, to avoid just this scenario. It’s not a billion/trillion error either, it’s just totally wrong numbers.
Will be interesting to see if the printed paper has the column with wrong numbers, and they have to issue a correction tomorrow!
Digital villages and small towns, not mega cities.
He’re a news clip of him at the 1988 RNC: https://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-chris-wallace-asks-trump-if-hed-run-for-president-27-years-ago/
(On the substantive point, yes COVID was a horribly expensive crisis. The per head figure seems in the right ballpark. 0.4 trillion out of 3 trillion seems on the low side, if anything.
Crises happen from time to time. I doubt that our parents/grandparents/great-grandparents enjoyed paying off the cost of World War 2. That doesn't mean they should have blamed the BBC for reporting the existence of a war, or not giving enough airtime to people who wanted to save money by agreeing peace in 1940 or so.)
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchills-1930s-warnings-nazi-germany/
(Incidentally, although hindsight proved appeasement didn't work it probably was the most logical policy at the time.)
OPEC has pretty much decided that it’s in their collective interest to take out Russia as a supplier for the foreseeable future, so they’re going to price out Putin and the Saudis are even selling at a discount on the commodity price to India next month.
Some relief on the horizon from high energy costs, assuming Rachel doesn’t just whack up fuel duty.
The difference between that and the UK price will mostly be tax and delivery. Don’t forget that you pay VAT on the fuel duty as well, tax on tax!
Perhaps the AOC / Mamdani wing is the best resistance to MAGA after all. I don't think they can win an election. Then again I don't think there will be an election, so...
Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017.
https://x.com/SeanCasten/status/1988807847824748557?s=20
R-R started the design a decade ago, based on a naval reactor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_SMR
In any case, going from design stage to dozens built in 10 years seems implausibly fast to me.
Apropos of nothing, does having a penis the size of a button mushroom count as micro?
Don't place any moe orders until you know how the numbers actually work. Or don't.
More to the point, I take it that you accept that Farage is on QT a lot, as claimed. You’re just arguing that that’s justified.
I checked my screen and am very happily green on Streeting, despite my view that getting Labour members to back him remains a big ask. All my next PM bets have been lays - Farage, Badenoch, Johnson, Jenrick, Cleverley, even a little lay on Rupert Lowe whose odds must have come in at some point. So everybody else is nicely green. On next Labour leader I have mostly been laying Burnham, with similar outcome.
One notable thing is all the economists still volunteering that the negative effects of Brexit continue to retard growth pretty significantly.
Poor growth and good explanation from Sky
https://news.sky.com/story/economy-grew-by-0-1-in-third-quarter-official-figures-show-13469133
Mobile Fires Platform "aims to achieve Minimum Deployable Capability (MDC) within this decade" according to latest written answer, but also says "project remains in its assessment phase and therefore it remains too early to provide an exact in-service date". ..
https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1988692344183656697
The plan was that, after a couple of prototypes, they come off a production line one every couple of months as the design is pretty simple.
It could also have generated billions in exports by now, shoring up the balance of payments.
But the past is in the past, and at least the government are doing something positive about the technology.
NEW THREAD
In any case Farage wouldn’t want to take the risk of even a QT audience giving him pelters for bullshit like this.
https://x.com/f_politics_/status/1988199381422752211?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The only sites they will be put are ones we just spent billions decommissioing exisiting nuclear power stations. The upper limit for the last number I saw for decomissioning all the existing nuclear facilities in the UK was £222 billion. Yep, billion. And that was a number from 2018. It's not like we have had any inflation since then.
For scale, that's more than half the cost of Covid to the UK. You know, the Covid that buggered up the UK economy - as the Chancellor has discovered.
If we created a convention whereby an election was held following a change of PM the result would not be more frequent elections. It would be fewer changes of PM. This would not be to our benefit as voters or citizens.
One is his relentless determination to use the language of the Right on issues such as immigration and welfare. But the other is that the government is short of about £150bn that would be required to close the deficit and address priority spending areas.
I'll criticise Starmer all day for not being a good politician, but one of the main reasons the Left have turned away from him is his inability to work a fiscal miracle. How many days until a new Miliband-type leader would fall foul of the same numerical logic?
So the Tories recovered from the Truss nadir because they got rid of Truss and Sunak/Hunt were an improvement on Truss/Kwarteng. The Brown government improved from its nadir because Mandelson was brought back and improved the quality of governance and communication.
My point is not a prediction that Labour will win zero seats at the next election. My point is that - without change - they will win zero seats at the next election.
So what will change to improve Labours prospects? And if they make a change, will they make the right change that improves things, or will they bungle it as the Tories did when they made Truss PM?
I think they're beyond the credibility event horizon where the public believe that anything good that happens is despite them and everything bad that happens is due to them.
For me, a 7.5 or 8 from 10 in this arena is "good/very good". There's a huge variety.
It's a fascinating conversation all about different views and frames of reference, and how they need to be fully defined for mutual understanding to work. One problem with 10/10 is that everyone assumes it is perfect and finished and done, which is never true. In this case my 7.5/10 was just a note to PB and self, so I wont tell anyone else, and will use words in my feedback. That's the "too short a summary" problem, which skewered Ofsted when they tried one word summaries.
A good example is a National Parks project called "Miles without Stiles" for accessible public footpaths. They label their routes as "for 'all'", "for 'many'", "for 'some'", and ‘challenging’, including gradients and surfaces.
https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/things-to-do/walking/mileswithoutstiles
The reference frame problem is that even their "for all" allows gradients are 1:10, described as "Suitable for everyone, including pushchairs and wheelchairs and mobility scooters". But they are not suitable for everyone. A reasonable maximum permissible gradient for normal mobility aids is 1:20 with resting platforms every so often, if we ask disabled organisations - and they prefer shallower gradients still.
In such circs, a consistent standard is the important thing if it is intended to be used widely - so people with different needs can judge it for themselves. And that needs a lot of information.
The same goes on for barriers. Guidelines are that a 1.5m gap with a sealed surface and level approaches is the only accessible access point. Anything else obstructs. I visited a project in Kenilworth in September where Kissing Gates had been used, on advice from a Local Council engaged Consultant. Those were accepted in the 1990s or 2000s, but mobility aid users know that they go rusty, or stiff, or overgrown, and cannot be relied upon unless perfectly maintained, which NEVER happens. And if they get stuck it becomes life threatening if in the countryside, because they cannot pick up their mobility aid and walk.
So it is a complex question, with no cut-and-dried solution.